Why Libya? Why Not Syria?

  • #51
411
34
How do you spell باتريشيا ومقتضب - the "Libyan Strongman"?

Qaddafi, Gadhafi. Gaddafi, Khaddify, Kadhafi - or doesn't anyone really care?
It all depends upon which transliteration system you use. The Arabic language contains sounds that are not represented by letters in the English language. (and vice-versa. The Semitic languages have no "j" sound, as in John, Jesus, etc.). Most media have a stylebook that they use for such transliterations. Consequently, what spelling you see depends upon what media is doing the presentation.
 
  • #52
149
0
It all depends upon which transliteration system you use. The Arabic language contains sounds that are not represented by letters in the English language. (and vice-versa. The Semitic languages have no "j" sound, as in John, Jesus, etc.). Most media have a stylebook that they use for such transliterations. Consequently, what spelling you see depends upon what media is doing the presentation.
I've recently noticed a variety of spellings offered on individual cable networks throughout the day - seems to depend upon the location reporting?
 
  • #53
MarcoD
One reason might be that very few UN members could come the discussion with clean hands, and Syria would be quick to point that out. Almost all countries have histories of killing their own citizens from time to time. Some, of course, more often or more recently than others.

A second reason might be that Israel prefers the existing Syrian government to what might conceivably replace it.

A third reason is that doing anything effective (as opposed to just talking about it) would be tremendously expensive in lives and wealth. So why talk about it if you're not going to do anything about it.

By the way, the Arab (English language) Al-Jazeera has been quite vocal in condemning Syria's repression of its citizens--far more so than any Western station.
Since you seem to know a good deal more about these things, I am interested what you would think would be appropriate, or what will happen.
 
  • #54
100
1
By the way, the Arab (English language) Al-Jazeera has been quite vocal in condemning Syria's repression of its citizens--far more so than any Western station.
what is up with that? do you think it could be a fear of annoying russia? of annoying israel? that the time is just not ready to begin the appeal to the public? or a lack of interests (oil)?
 
  • #55
411
34
Since you seem to know a good deal more about these things, I am interested what you would think would be appropriate, or what will happen.
What is "appropriate" depends upon your value system. Mine says "hands off" until there is some real benefit to the American people in doing otherwise.

As to "what will happen", I have no prophetic skills. I suspect that the American news media will eventually lose interest--much as they have done with famine in black Africa.
 
  • #56
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
Would the no action "until there's a real benefit" rule apply to the US in the presence of a 1940 Nazi Germany?
 
Last edited:
  • #57
DoggerDan
In Libya, we say we're there to protect civilians, but we're not: we're there to support the opposition in the civil war.
I think that's the main reason. Additional ones may be that we've wanted Qaddafi out since Lockerby, but have had somewhat better relations with Syrian's head honchos.
 
  • #58
411
34
Would the no action "until there's a real benefit" rule apply to the US in the presence of a 1940 Nazi Germany?
Since I was alive, politically alert, and an avid reader at the outbreak of WWII, I can speak to that question from experience. At the onset of the Nazi attacks, the vast majority of the U. S. people wanted nothing whatsoever to do with the war in Europe. Nazi sympathizers from Lindbergh on down were were very vocal. Marches and assemblies by the German-American Bund were well attended. Jews were not admitted to most American country clubs, and were even denied lodging at many upscale hotels (see the old movie "Gentleman's Agreement", with Gregory Peck). FDR's warnings about Nazi intentions went largely unheeded. His "lend-lease" program to supply Britain was generally unpopular.

It wasn't until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, that U. S. opinion began to change, and even then there were many who wanted us to fight the Japanese and leave Europe to its own defense.

Please don't take my word for this. Read any good book on the U. S. entry into WWII.
 
  • #59
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/syrian-activist-ghiyath-matars-death-spurs-grief-debate/2011/09/14/gIQArgq8SK_story_1.html" [Broken]

A man who had encapsulated the youthful idealism of syria’s grass-roots protest movement, pioneering the tactic of handing out roses and water to the troops sent to shoot demonstrators, had died in custody. ...“We know how peaceful this guy was, and he was tortured to death, and it shows that if we continue like this, we’ll be treated like anyone who had a gun and was a terrorist,” he said. “Everyone’s really, really angry.”
Which is tragic. I applaud the US ambassador for attending the victim's funeral ceremonies, but then he says this:
“There’s a growing frustration in the streets that a lot of people are being killed and wounded and that they should take up arms,” said the diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive subjects. “This young man understood the importance of the protest movement staying peaceful, even as he was confronting a lot of violence.”
Why? Why must the protest remain peaceful? So Assad can do more of the same and stay in power, so Syria drops off the front page, and the US need do nothing?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/277356/limits-gandhi-ism-mark-krikorian" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #60
100
1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/syrian-activist-ghiyath-matars-death-spurs-grief-debate/2011/09/14/gIQArgq8SK_story_1.html" [Broken]


Which is tragic. I applaud the US ambassador for attending the victim's funeral ceremonies, but then he says this:
Why? Why must the protest remain peaceful? So Assad can do more of the same and stay in power, so Syria drops off the front page, and the US need do nothing?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/277356/limits-gandhi-ism-mark-krikorian" [Broken]
why? so the people can be controlled, of course. haven't you noticed that they're already trying to disarm the libyan rebels, even while gadaffi is still loose and heaven knows what the new government will be like?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #61
damascus
I am syrian and had to make acount to share what majority of syrian people think.

We dont want any forein intervention. We dont exactly have America/France/Britain in our harts and consider them as bad, if not worse, than our tyrant.

We consider America to be the number one terrorist state. How do you call killing hundred of thousands of innocent iraqis in a war based on lies, only to control region and oil? We call this terrorism.

Syrian people are well educated about western world imperialism. Please america, for once, mind your own business.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #62
472
0
I am syrian and had to make acount to share what majority of syrian people think.

We dont want any forein intervention. We dont exactly have America/France/Britain in our harts and consider them as bad, if not worse, than our tyrant.

We consider America to be the number one terrorist state. How do you call killing hundred of thousands of innocent iraqis in a war based on lies, only to control region and oil? We call this terrorism.

Syrian people are well educated about western world imperialism. Please america, for once, mind your own business.
I've spoken to a few Iraqi's who've been disposessed, displaced since 2003. They didn't like Sadaam, they didn't like the political situation, but, as they say it, at least they had a life. So, being an American, living in the US for my entire life, I can empathize with this. I certainly wouldn't want a foreign power to invade and occupy my land.

Unfortunately, the reality is that the world at large is not a just or fair place. Whether because of US past deeds or not, the ME is, generally, a hotbed of anti-US antagonism. That's a current fact that the US can't ignore. Plus, there's those vast oil reserves. The US is never, ever, going to just mind its own business.

It's a sort of war on many fronts. And propagandists on both sides will try to spin it in their favor. But, as I see it, it's a confrontation between two quite different ways of life. And while I can empathize with the anger of Arabs and Muslims, I still don't want them to win.
 

Related Threads on Why Libya? Why Not Syria?

  • Last Post
12
Replies
298
Views
63K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
82
Views
11K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
43
Views
11K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
325
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
5K
Top